Discussion in 'General ME/CFS News' started by Dolphin, Jun 2, 2016.
Maybe Coyne made them an offer, they could not refuse
Do they even know what they're doing anymore?
I suspect the university didn't agree that there was any problem. Can we interpret this as PACE lobby losing support?
Was that PLoS consulting, or the authors?...
Would be nice.
New comment from Retraction Watch (it's not news - just some coverage)...
PLOS ONE republishes removed chronic fatigue syndrome data
Loading Tweet... https://twitter.com/statuses/738754823860801536
I wonder what was going on with all this.
This new correction totally screws a lot of the excuses used to try to avoid releasing PACE data. I wonder if it will have any impact on the tribunal decision? Would be odd to have a tribunal now say that PACE's data cannot be released because of concerns about consent from participants or re-identification. But maybe it's too late now? Would be bloody annoying to have a judgement now come out saying how the retraction of FINE data showed open release is outside of what's allowed as a part of a commitment to data sharing!
anyone know what's happening with the PACE tribunal decision or heard anything new about when it might be made public? I don't like all this waiting - and it seems to be taking a very long time..........
I've not heard anything publicly. Don't know if there are things going on behind the scenes or not, but it does seem like it's been an unusually long wait.
....not to be paranoid, but has anyone compared the old data and the republished data?
Heh. So young, so cynical ....
Have others managed to download the dataset? (I have tried but thus far have been unsuccessful though it is likely because I am technologically challenged.)
Edit to clarify - I am trying to download the corrected dataset.
S1 Dataset. De-identified trial data.
(Question posted here as well.)
I can download it but I can't open it because it is a .dta file format, for which I have no software to open it in.
We have a link somewhere for the original data set that has been converted to a file that will open in Excell.
But I'm not aware of anyone having converted the new data file so it can be opened in Excell.
@Bob - thank you. I have the original set as a pdf of all things - but cannot remember how I can by it.
The (original) data files can be downloaded, in accessible formats, here: http://forums.phoenixrising.me/inde...from-pace-trial-team.44705/page-4#post-731449
Somebody posted here (the post appears to have been deleted) that the new and old file were identical in the sense of having the same SHA-1 hash. This cannot be correct because they are not even of the same size. The new file contains more information. I'm currently trying to understand what has changed, and if there is anything suspicious. It is probably just nothing but verifying is better than trusting.
I haven't deleted the post, A.B., but I could have made a mistake when calculating the checksum.
The file I downloaded in December and the one I downloaded yesterday are both 41KB in size.
How large is the file you downloaded?
So right, so wise.....
You can also try a Google Site Search
Separate names with a comma.